1993 PLP 1011 (CLC)

(4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? (5) Whether the vendor is necessary party and what is its effect? (6) Whether the plaintiff has no superior right of pre‑emption qua the vendee‑defendant? (7) Whether the ostensible sale price was paid or was fixed in good faith? (8) 1f issue No.7 is not proved, what is the market value of the stilt land? (9) Whether the suit is out of time? (10) Relief. and after recording of evidence decreed the suit in favour of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated 20‑2‑1975 on payment of Rs.15,000 as sale price of the suit land. This judgment was challenged by both the parties in appeal which was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide remand order dated 29‑10‑1976 and the finding recorded on issue No.6 was set aside and the case was remanded with the direction that additional evidence should be recorded and issue should be decided afresh. Findings on other issues were however maintained. After recording of additional evidence, the learned trial Court again decreed the suit in favour of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated 15‑10‑1979. The petitioner challenged this judgment and decree in appeal. The appeal has been dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgments and decree 2‑4‑1983. Both the judgment and decree have been challenged by the vendee through this Civil Revision.

2. Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner whereas Mr. Jehangir A. Jhoja, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it Stands established on record that the petitioner who was an occupancy tenant acquired the rights of ownership in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 by deposit of !he necessary amount during the pendency of the suit, and therefore, he also became owner in the estate and as such the petitioner having improved his status during the pendency of the suit by operation of law shall get the benefit of section 21‑A of the, Punjab Pre emption Act and as such the suit could not have been decreed in favour of the respondent. Mr. Jehangir A. Jhoja, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has argued that as per provisions of section 21‑A of Punjab Pre‑emption Act, the vendee can improve his status only prior to the institution of the suit and. after the suit is filed, it is only through inheritance or succession that he may successfully improve his status and as in this case, the petitioner has claimed improvement in his status not through inheritance or succession but in pursuance of law, hence he could not get benefit of section 21‑A of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913, and, as such, could not non‑suit the respondent which suit has rightly been decreed in favour of the respondent, and hence this Civil Revision is liable to be dismissed.

3. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant provisions of law. Section 21‑A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 reads as under:‑‑ "21‑A Any improvement, otherwise than through inheritance or succession, made in the status of a vendee‑defendant after the institution of a suit for pre‑emption shall not affect the right of the pre‑emptor‑plaintiff in such suit." A bare perusal of the above section shows that improvement of status by a vendee during the pendency of a suit is not of any avail to him except in cases of inheritance or succession. Improvement of status by operation of law has not been mentioned is section 21‑A as a ground of equality of superiority, hence it cannot be said that the petitioner by improving his status during the pendency of the suit can non‑suit the respondent. The word "inheritance" or "succession" definitely has a different connotation and does not include acquisition of title in pursuance of Punjab Tenancy Act 1887, as I amended. In view of the above, I see no force in this Civil Revision, the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M‑848/L Revision dismissed.